JIMMY PORTER, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Jimmy Porter appealed his conviction for sale of cocaine, arguing that the trial court improperly allowed the state to reveal the specific nature of his prior convictions during cross-examination. The court reversed and remanded for a new trial, holding that while the state may ask about the existence and number of prior felonies or crimes of dishonesty, it may not disclose the nature of those crimes except through certified records of conviction.
The state may impeach a defendant by asking whether he or she has been convicted of a felony or crime involving dishonesty and how many times, and may introduce certified records of convictions if the defendant denies the convictions or misstates their number. However, the state may not name the specific crimes or state the nature of the crimes during cross-examination; the nature of crimes is admissible only through certified records of conviction.
[1] A prosecutor may impeach a defendant's character by asking about prior felony convictions or convictions for crimes involving dishonesty or false statements, and the numb…
[2] When a defendant denies prior convictions or misstates the number of such convictions, the state may introduce certified records of those convictions into evidence.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The state may impeach the character of the defendant by asking him whether he or she has ever been convicted of a felony or of a crime involving dishonesty or a false statement, and how many times.”
Establishes the permissible scope of impeachment through questions about convictions under Florida statute § 90.610(1).
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePorter testified in his own defense and presented an alibi defense to a cocaine sale charge. During cross-examination, the state asked Porter about hi…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Crimes Involving False Statement cases and more on FLexlaw
PARKER, Judge.
Jimmy Porter appeals his judgment and sentence for sale of cocaine. We reverse and remand for a new trial, concluding that the trial court committed reversible error in allowing the state to name Porter’s prior convictions during cross examination.
Porter testified and presented an alibi defense. During cross examination, the state asked Porter if he had been convicted of a felony. Porter responded affirmatively. The state then asked him the number of his convictions. Porter testified that he had been convicted of three felonies. The state then asked Porter if he had been convicted of a misdemeanor involving a crime of dishonesty. Porter testified that he had not been convicted of such a crime. The state thereafter inquired into the nature of a prior misdemeanor conviction for petit theft and six prior felony convictions.
The trial court overruled defense counsel’s objections.
We conclude this was error. The state may impeach the character of the defendant by asking him whether he or she has ever been convicted of a felony or of a crime involving dishonesty or a false statement, and how many times. § 90.610(1), Fla.Stat. (1989); Williams v. State, 511 So. 2d 1017 (Fla. 2d DCA), review denied, 519 So. 2d 988 (Fla.1987) (citing Cummings v. State, 412 So. 2d 436 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)); Gavins v. State, 587 So. 2d 487 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991).
If the defendant either denies having been convicted or misstates the number of previous convictions, the state may introduce into evidence certified records of the convictions. Williams. Although the state entered into evidence six certified judgments of conviction, it was improper for the state to “name the specific crimes or to state the nature of the crimes.” See Gavins, 587 So. 2d at 490 (citations omitted).
The nature of the crimes is admissible only by entering into evidence the records of the convictions. Fulton v. State, 335 So. 2d 280 (Fla.1976).
We disagree with the state’s argument that the error was harmless. During closing argument, the state elaborated on the nature of Porter’s prior convictions, specifically naming each one. Harmless error occurs when the proof of guilt is so convincing that the jury would have found the defendant guilty even without the improper evidence. State v. DiGuilio, 491 So. 2d 1129 (Fla.1986). See also Gavins, 587 So. 2d at 490. Considering the cross examination in this case and the fact that Porter’s defense was an alibi defense, we cannot say the error was harmless. Reversed and remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
FRANK, Á.C.J., and THREADGILL, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
McFADDEN v. State, 732 So. 2d 412 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)…erred to, it is plain, and independent, error to introduce these (particularly damaging) “specifics of the prior convictions.” Sheffield v. State, 585 So. 2d 396, 397 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991), approved, 595 So. 2d 37 (Fla.1992); see also Porter v. State, 593 So. 2d 1158 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). 3. Finally, both of these mistakes were further exacerbated when McFadden was not permitted to explain to the jury that he had denied being previously convicted on the entirely accurate ground that, in fact, adjudication had bee…
-
Williams v. State, 654 So. 2d 261 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)…or fails to admit the number of such convictions, the state may then introduce into evidence proof of the convictions, usually certified copies of the judgment and sentence, without stating the exact nature of the prior convictions. Porter v. State, 593 So. 2d 1158 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992); Peoples v. State, 576 So. 2d 783 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991), aff’d, on other grounds, 612 So. 2d 555 (Fla.1992); Cummings, 412 So. 2d 436. Contrary to Williams’ assertion, neither Cummings nor Peoples requires that the certified copies…
-
White v. Singletary, 717 So. 2d 1054 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)…thod for impeaching a witness who responds incorrectly to a question regarding prior convictions is to enter a certified copy of the witnesses’s prior convictions into the record. See e.g. Fulton v. State, 335 So. 2d 280 (Fla.1976); Porter v. State, 593 So. 2d 1158 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992); Gavins v. State, 587 So. 2d 487 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Meyers v. State, 561 So. 2d 1304 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Cummings v. State, 412 So. 2d 436 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982); Blasco v. State, 419 So. 2d 807 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Williams v. Stat…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. DiGUILIO, 491 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 1986)
- Fulton v. State, 335 So. 2d 280 (Fla. 1976)
- Lambert Keith Gavins v. State, 587 So. 2d 487 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)
- Cummings v. State, 412 So. 2d 436 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)
- Cochran v. Cochran, 412 So. 2d 436 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)
- Williams v. State, 511 So. 2d 1017 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)